Bill Clinton is right!

[dude1394]

He'll have to kiss my ass too. LOL.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...s-support.html

Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must 'kiss my ass' for his support
The Telegraph reported:

Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama's victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support...

The Telegraph has learned that the former president's rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could "kiss my ass" in return for his support.

Kathryn Jean Lopez was right.
Bill wasn't going to take this humiliation.

[wmbwinn]

A house divided...

[Flacolaco]

I thought this thread was going to be about overweight interns.

(also....what is this man doing? He was President of the US for goodness sake. He has allowed his wife to drag his good (lol) name though the mud, and become even more of a laughing stock than he was before. How sad. Not dignified at all. A President should know, and act better.)

[rabbitproof]

That's a funny ass pic of that fool. It's funny enough that I wonder if it was shopped.

Jajaja.

[dude1394]

He's just upholding the stellar example set by the last democrat president.

[rabbitproof]

Really though, good for him. F party lines. Back the man, not the party. That's too often the problem with politics. Besides, the obvious that is..

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

(also....what is this man doing? He was President of the US for goodness sake. He has allowed his wife to drag his good (lol) name though the mud, and become even more of a laughing stock than he was before. How sad. Not dignified at all. A President should know, and act better.)

You know what? I think that's part of the problem, that we look at it that way. That he should be so "dignified" because he held that office. First off, he certainly didn't have a shred of dignity when he actually held the office, so why should he now?

I really do staunchly believe that we Americans ought to get past this Camelot/Reagan mindset of what we expect from our president. What is the man? Errr...or person? He/she is the head of the executive branch of our government. That's it! No more, no less...but especially no more. I'm getting about sick and tired of people who feel like their kids won't grow up in a euphoric world if the US President doesn't oppose abortion, or anything else along those lines. I think that for some people the presidential elections are a big, huge game of American Idol. Gimme a break, already. The man, or woman, is a person...just like Nancy Pelosi is a person, just like Newt Gingrich is a person...just like they ALL are persons.

Let's hire somebody to do a JOB, not to raise our kids. Raise your own damn kids. The POTUS is a job, and a very big one. We don't need a superhero. We need somebody to do a damn job...and maybe sometimes, yes, without dignity. The Brits have it right. They have the prime minister to do all the executive stuff, and then the king or queen to do the "dignity." We Americans are SO jealous of that royalty, when in reality all we need is that PM.

[Flacolaco]

But all the other nations will be cracking wise on our mommas.

(Seriously, that's all I've got tonight chum...point you. I've dipped into the sauce a little tonight and don't care to defend myself.)

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You know what? I think that's part of the problem, that we look at it that way. That he should be so "dignified" because he held that office. First off, he certainly didn't have a shred of dignity when he actually held the office, so why should he now?

I really do staunchly believe that we Americans ought to get past this Camelot/Reagan mindset of what we expect from our president. What is the man? Errr...or person? He/she is the head of the executive branch of our government. That's it! No more, no less...but especially no more. I'm getting about sick and tired of people who feel like their kids won't grow up in a euphoric world if the US President doesn't oppose abortion, or anything else along those lines. I think that for some people the presidential elections are a big, huge game of American Idol. Gimme a break, already. The man, or woman, is a person...just like Nancy Pelosi is a person, just like Newt Gingrich is a person...just like they ALL are persons.

Let's hire somebody to do a JOB, not to raise our kids. Raise your own damn kids. The POTUS is a job, and a very big one. We don't need a superhero. We need somebody to do a damn job...and maybe sometimes, yes, without dignity. The Brits have it right. They have the prime minister to do all the executive stuff, and then the king or queen to do the "dignity." We Americans are SO jealous of that royalty, when in reality all we need is that PM.

I seem to disagree w/this cat more often than not but on the issues that count, I'm always relieved to see we're coming from the same place. Nice post.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You know what? I think that's part of the problem, that we look at it that way. That he should be so "dignified" because he held that office. First off, he certainly didn't have a shred of dignity when he actually held the office, so why should he now?

I really do staunchly believe that we Americans ought to get past this Camelot/Reagan mindset of what we expect from our president. What is the man? Errr...or person? He/she is the head of the executive branch of our government. That's it! No more, no less...but especially no more. I'm getting about sick and tired of people who feel like their kids won't grow up in a euphoric world if the US President doesn't oppose abortion, or anything else along those lines. I think that for some people the presidential elections are a big, huge game of American Idol. Gimme a break, already. The man, or woman, is a person...just like Nancy Pelosi is a person, just like Newt Gingrich is a person...just like they ALL are persons.

Let's hire somebody to do a JOB, not to raise our kids. Raise your own damn kids. The POTUS is a job, and a very big one. We don't need a superhero. We need somebody to do a damn job...and maybe sometimes, yes, without dignity. The Brits have it right. They have the prime minister to do all the executive stuff, and then the king or queen to do the "dignity." We Americans are SO jealous of that royalty, when in reality all we need is that PM.

I agree, let's hire a person to do the job. Now the number one JOB of the president is to be Commander N Chief of the US Military. Let's hire Military personnel experienced only, and let the job of all the socialist program and economy BS go to some other position.

So let's stop playing politics and popularity contest and actually put an honest person who has the best interest of the country in the office, and forget the rest of it.

[ShaggyDirk]

I heard from my brothers friends second cousin he did in fact say this...

[ShaggyDirk]

everyone complains about articles from sports writers and bloggers all the time..but when it comes to politics I guess anywhere and anything goes as long as it fits. "the Telegraph learned"??

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

That's a funny ass pic of that fool. It's funny enough that I wonder if it was shopped.

Jajaja.

It looks like he's trying real hard to not cry...

[dude1394]

So the president shouldn't be dignified? He should just flop out the f'bomb, boff ladies, criticize our country while overseas, all of the things that bubba and jimmah have been doing.

Okay...whatever floats your boat.

Me...is it too much to ask that your ex presidents have some class? Is that what all of our culture has come to, crude people being our leaders.

It's not about camelot, it's about someone who doesn't act like they are one generation from the farm leading our country.

[Robillion]

I agree, let's hire a person to do the job. Now the number one JOB of the president is to be Commander N Chief of the US Military. Let's hire Military personnel experienced only, and let the job of all the socialist program and economy BS go to some other position.

So let's stop playing politics and popularity contest and actually put an honest person who has the best interest of the country in the office, and forget the rest of it.

A country where the number job for the President is to run the military.. that being the main priority... is not a country I want to live in. Thank God there are polar opposite people in this country that dilute that imperialist mindset to create a quasi-peaceful state.

Id rather have a President's job be to promote a higher standard of living for his/her constituency rather than focusing moreso on foreign military objectives that inevitably make our country and the world a more dangerous place to live.

I guess that's just me :/ heh

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You know what? I think that's part of the problem, that we look at it that way. That he should be so "dignified" because he held that office. First off, he certainly didn't have a shred of dignity when he actually held the office, so why should he now?

I really do staunchly believe that we Americans ought to get past this Camelot/Reagan mindset of what we expect from our president. What is the man? Errr...or person? He/she is the head of the executive branch of our government. That's it! No more, no less...but especially no more. I'm getting about sick and tired of people who feel like their kids won't grow up in a euphoric world if the US President doesn't oppose abortion, or anything else along those lines. I think that for some people the presidential elections are a big, huge game of American Idol. Gimme a break, already. The man, or woman, is a person...just like Nancy Pelosi is a person, just like Newt Gingrich is a person...just like they ALL are persons.

Let's hire somebody to do a JOB, not to raise our kids. Raise your own damn kids. The POTUS is a job, and a very big one. We don't need a superhero. We need somebody to do a damn job...and maybe sometimes, yes, without dignity. The Brits have it right. They have the prime minister to do all the executive stuff, and then the king or queen to do the "dignity." We Americans are SO jealous of that royalty, when in reality all we need is that PM.

Mike Tyson for Prez. Ron Artest as Vice prez.

No, that is not the answer...

Morality and Responsibility and Leadership are important.

Dang, you almost sound like a disciple of Machiavelli himself...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Robillion

A country where the number job for the President is to run the military.. that being the main priority... is not a country I want to live in. Thank God there are polar opposite people in this country that dilute that imperialist mindset to create a quasi-peaceful state.

Id rather have a President's job be to promote a higher standard of living for his/her constituency rather than focusing moreso on foreign military objectives that inevitably make our country and the world a more dangerous place to live.

I guess that's just me :/ heh

The vast majority of people would prefer to live in a time of peace and prosperity. Dalmations was referring to the Constitutional powers of a Prez. He was in the military (he admitted on another thread that he fought in Panama and has been very happy to never see military action again) and does not strike me as one who is quick to push the "attack" button.

But, like it or not, humans are violent critters. Whether you like it or not, you need Military strength.

[Robillion]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So the president shouldn't be dignified? He should just flop out the f'bomb, boff ladies, criticize our country while overseas, all of the things that bubba and jimmah have been doing.

Okay...whatever floats your boat.

Me...is it too much to ask that your ex presidents have some class? Is that what all of our culture has come to, crude people being our leaders.

It's not about camelot, it's about someone who doesn't act like they are one generation from the farm leading our country.

I actually share in this belief... the President of the United States of America should be someone that can be respected by anyone. In this country or abroad. When a President acts in an immature, shameful manner it does not reflect well on our country as a whole. The President is the number 1 representative/ambassador of the country.

[Robillion]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The vast majority of people would prefer to live in a time of peace and prosperity. Dalmations was referring to the Constitutional powers of a Prez. He was in the military (he admitted on another thread that he fought in Panama and has been very happy to never see military action again) and does not strike me as one who is quick to push the "attack" button.

But, like it or not, humans are violent critters. Whether you like it or not, you need Military strength.

I was not assuming that dalmations is someone that just wants to go bombing around.. but there is that difference in mindset with people in this country. You either believe that you are protecting your country and helping build our defense by being on the attack first and battling abroad. Or you believe that war elsewhere (or at all rather) only makes our country more susceptible for attack and other areas around the world more volatile. That war today creates more enemies than gains allies.

With that said... we have the resources, and should.. to be able to have the largest most advanced military in the world. It is something I believe we must have.. It is how that power should be used that is important. .. I believe the President's main focus should be on domestic issues... if a threat arises, then an enemy should know that they would no longer exist if they were to threaten us with any type of military action. And as far as terrorism goes... I do not believe that is something you can win against with war. Extremist are only fueled on more by that and they then have a centralized location to assemble and grow ... I can go on on and more about how flawed of a strategy war is for fighting terrorism. But we should leave that for another thread.

Anyways, Clinton is a shame as a past President and many democrats even viewed him as such as President. Even though I believe he lead our country much better while he was in office than his successor.. in terms of class and maturity, he still has not upheld the title of President to the standard of which should be representative of our country. ..and neither has Bush in terms of intellect or leadership

[chumdawg]

In my mind, Bush 41 does a good job of representing what I think of as the ideal president theoretically...in the context of this discussion, that is. He didn't have a lot of charm, so folks didn't necessarily look to him for guidance in the ways of personality. He didn't try to grow or to make the office into anything more than it essentially is. He didn't try to dictate morals to the populace. He didn't have any important peccadillos, at least that we knew about...and that's part of the point. Maybe he did have them but we just weren't that interested in them, because he wasn't the kind of guy that paparazzi would follow around.

Yet he did a fine job of administering the government, and also of leading the military. And in the end we didn't re-elect him...I guess because he was too boring for most people.

In his time out of office he has mostly been out of the public eye, which is exactly how it should be. I don't think you will find too many Americans who are all that interested in what George Bush senior thinks about things. Good. He did his job, he did it well, and then he got the hell out of the way.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

In my mind, Bush 41 does a good job of representing what I think of as the ideal president theoretically...in the context of this discussion, that is. He didn't have a lot of charm, so folks didn't necessarily look to him for guidance in the ways of personality. He didn't try to grow or to make the office into anything more than it essentially is. He didn't try to dictate morals to the populace. He didn't have any important peccadillos, at least that we knew about...and that's part of the point. Maybe he did have them but we just weren't that interested in them, because he wasn't the kind of guy that paparazzi would follow around.

Yet he did a fine job of administering the government, and also of leading the military. And in the end we didn't re-elect him...I guess because he was too boring for most people.

In his time out of office he has mostly been out of the public eye, which is exactly how it should be. I don't think you will find too many Americans who are all that interested in what George Bush senior thinks about things. Good. He did his job, he did it well, and then he got the hell out of the way.

Agreed. Too bad about the "Read my lips... I won't raise taxes"
That killed him.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Agreed. Too bad about the "Read my lips... I won't raise taxes"
That killed him.

I'm not sure that's what really killed him. As we know, there are a lot of sins that are forgivable in politics. After all, this country re-elected Clinton!

I think what killed Bush in '92 is that his political team wasn't prepared to deal with the new brand of oppenent they went up against. The current politic changed, and left them behind. The same thing is happening this year...

[jefelump]

The larger issue that hurt Bush 41 in '92 was Ross Perot. The "read my lips, no new taxes" was devastating to his re-election when he raised taxes, but I agree many sins are forgiveable in politics. Bringing in a third candidate, who himself was more conservative leaning, pulled votes away from Bush. Clinton didn't win a clear majority. He just did better than Bush and Perot.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

The larger issue that hurt Bush 41 in '92 was Ross Perot. The "read my lips, no new taxes" was devastating to his re-election when he raised taxes, but I agree many sins are forgiveable in politics. Bringing in a third candidate, who himself was more conservative leaning, pulled votes away from Bush. Clinton didn't win a clear majority. He just did better than Bush and Perot.

Yeah, that's true. Bush probably wins if Perot doesn't run. But the newness of the main opponent was still a factor, as I maintain it presently is in the '08 campaign...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Agreed. Too bad about the "Read my lips... I won't raise taxes"
That killed him.

that killed him pretty good. That and Perot.

I also was REALLY pissed that he folded on the budget when they had Gramm-Rudman going. The guvment finally had a mechanism to across-the-board budget cuts and he let folks not getting into yosemite make him fold.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I agree, let's hire a person to do the job. Now the number one JOB of the president is to be Commander N Chief of the US Military. Let's hire Military personnel experienced only, and let the job of all the socialist program and economy BS go to some other position.

So let's stop playing politics and popularity contest and actually put an honest person who has the best interest of the country in the office, and forget the rest of it.

Speaking of the Commander In Chief job, here's an interesting article I found.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/...r/clark_mccain

WASHINGTON - Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former Democratic presidential candidate now supporting Barack Obama, said Sunday John McCain's military service does not automatically qualify him to be commander in chief.

Underscoring during a national television appearance a position he has been expressing for several weeks, Clark said performing heroic military service is not a substitute for gaining command experience.

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility," Clark said. "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron."

Moderator Bob Schieffer, who raised the issue by citing similar remarks Clark has made previously, noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.

In a March conference call with reporters while he was still backing Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clark said: "Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn't prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues."

He reiterated that position last week in an article on The Huffington Post Web site.

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to question John McCain's military service, that's their right," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said after Clark's appearance Sunday. "But let's please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is he's proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain's military service record."

I find it very interesting, and somewhat hypocritical, that Ret. General Wesley Clark is railing on McCain's military experience, saying being a fighter pilot or POW wasn't "command experience" and therefore does not qualify him to be President. Somebody please explain to me what military command experience Obama has that would qualify him for the job, and therefore warrant Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark's endorsement.

Moderator Bob Schieffer should have said "Obama has no military experience whatsoever, so why are you endorsing him?"

[chumdawg]

What he probably means is that McCain's service is about as relevant to the job of commander in chief as Obama's non-service is. In other words, a guy who was an undersized point guard yet survived in the NBA is not necessarily the guy you want coaching your NBA team.

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Somebody please explain to me what military command experience Obama has that would qualify him for the job, and therefore warrant Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark's endorsement.

I've got just two words to offer in answer to your question, Jefelump: 'Community Organizer'

[chumdawg]

That was '72, right?

[wmbwinn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jefelump
Somebody please explain to me what military command experience Obama has that would qualify him for the job, and therefore warrant Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark's endorsement.


Quote:
Originally posted by EvilMav2:
I've got just two words to offer in answer to your question, Jefelump: 'Community Organizer' [funny pic above]

----------------------

Wesley Clark is a worthless sell out. He has repeatedly abandoned the military he says he lived for. He has political goals. Watch and you see Wesley Clark as a Rep or Senator some day.

Any military man who would support Obama and badmouth the military experience of a POW is not worthy of the stars and stripes on his uniform.

I, personally, do not like McCain. I like Obama even less. But, you will never hear me speak badly of any person who ever served in the military; at least, you will never hear me speak badly about that person's military service.

[ShaggyDirk]

I still haven't seen, read, or heard of any ass kissing. But, I did hear there was a batboy sighting on top of the Empire State Building.

[dalmations202]

Let's see.
from the constitution:
Legislative branch -- makes laws.
Judicial branch -- interprets the law.
Executive branch -- enforces the law.

From todays society:
Legislation branch -- picks sides, argues alot about who gets to spend most of the countries money and on what. If not, nothing changes.
Judicial branch -- decides to make law by coming up with their own personal agenda and makes it up as they go.
Executive branch -- the popularity contest where charisma means everything. Lie, cheat, and steal and be praised for it. Make sure your legacy is defined by the economy (which you really have no control over), or social welfare which is suppose to be controlled by the states. If all else fails, get impeached or even start a new war --- every country needs fewer citizens, and more available jobs anyway. This way you can make your name in history.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Wesley Clark is a worthless sell out. He has repeatedly abandoned the military he says he lived for. He has political goals. Watch and you see Wesley Clark as a Rep or Senator some day.

Any military man who would support Obama and badmouth the military experience of a POW is not worthy of the stars and stripes on his uniform.

I, personally, do not like McCain. I like Obama even less. But, you will never hear me speak badly of any person who ever served in the military; at least, you will never hear me speak badly about that person's military service.

Clark didn't speak badly of McCain or badmouth his service. He questioned whether that service provided traiing for a commander in chief .... which most seem to simply assume to be the case.


YOUR statement, on the other hand about "any military man that would support Obama...." kinda speaks volumes to me. It is borderline traitor territory for an ex military leader to support a democrat?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Clark didn't speak badly of McCain or badmouth his service. He questioned whether that service provided traiing for a commander in chief .... which most seem to simply assume to be the case.


YOUR statement, on the other hand about "any military man that would support Obama...." kinda speaks volumes to me. It is borderline traitor territory for an ex military leader to support a democrat?

I believe wmbwinn said "Any military man who would support Obama and badmouth the military experience of a POW is not worthy of the stars and stripes on his uniform", not "any military man that would support a democrat...." You're taking his words regarding support of Obama and applying it to the entire party, which is incorrect. I would have no problems with a military man supporting Lieberman, who is/was a democrat (now Independent, since his own party tried to stab him in the back). Other military men supported John Kerry, who also was a military man. I would not call that support "borderline traitor territory."

[mcsluggo]

but you WOULD consider support for Barrak Obama by a military man/woman borderline traitor territory?

[jefelump]

Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark is Obama's military advisor, is he not? Although Obama has distanced himself from the comments, you know he supports it. This is what politicians do. They let someone else do their dirty work, so they can get in front of the cameras and disown the comments. It's all calculated. Why do you think Obama came out the next day saying he would never question his opponent's patriotism in this campaign? He sent his military advisor to make the assenine comment, so he could look good disowning it. So in this context, I agree with wmbwinn when he said "Any military man who would support Obama and badmouth the military experience of a POW is not worthy of the stars and stripes on his uniform." I believe "borderline traitor" were your words, not his.